Automaton

I enjoyed Kenny's piece. It is very well done. It takes talent to create a coherent, valid and persuasive argument, but it takes a special kind of talent to reduce it into such few words and achieve elegance.

I agree that there is nothing inherently in religion that conflicts with science, but it can if that religion makes specific scientific claims that may or may not conflict with the established data. Religions may disagree, religion itself doesn't. Also, another possible way is for the religion to disagree with such principles as the scientific method or methodological naturalism. But this is really philosophy of science, not science itself.

Bede

Gentlemen,

Me arrogant? Yes, very probably. I plead guilty. However, I'll try and put something on the table and we'll see where we go.

Let’s look at the facts Daydreamer presented.

First Galileo. This is a fascinating case as it is the only time that the church actually legally challenged a scientist (used anachronistically, but what the hell) for scientific views. Galileo, of course, was an old friend of the Pope and got himself into trouble for political reasons. But once they’d decided to get him his cosmology presented the best way to do it. Remember at the time nearly all the scientific authorities agreed with Aristotle that the earth was a stationary sphere. Against the bible, which says the earth is flat, the church agreed. So did such great minds as Archimedes who actually dismisses a moving earth in one of his treatises.

Still, Galileo insisted and presented his views. He turned out to be unable to present any evidence whatsoever that he was right. He suggested the tides but this was wrong. He used his telescope but this only showed that bodies could orbit other bodies apart from the Earth. Brahe had already said that and many academics accepted his uncontroversial theories as the best fit to the evidence. Keplar had done better and would win the argument but Galileo didn’t accept Keplar’s ellipitcal orbit idea – largely because he hadn’t thought it up himself. Even today, it is impossible the demonstrate the earth orbits the sun without years of astronomical observation or very powerful telescopes not available to Galileo and co. If I'm honest, the only way I know the earth is in motion is I've read enough authorities that tell me so. If the heliocentric equivalent of a Jesus myther, willing to ignore all the authorities, said "Prove it", I'd be in trouble.

So, this case was an argument between scientists where the church foolishly took sides. Scientifically, Galileo lost the argument but as he turned out to be mainly right after all history forgets his errors. Feyerabend covers all this in Against Method although his conclusions go too far, I think.

Newton wasn’t pestered about putting God in his theories as he was a devoutly religious man who spent more time on theology than science. He invoked God to get the solar system rolling and also because there were planetary perturbations he couldn’t explain. There are many good bios on Newton.

Darwin never suffered any hounding for his theory although his bulldog, Huxley, did plenty of hounding himself. Until the neo Darwinian synthesis with genetics, Darwin’s was a theory without a method and open to debate. I am unaware of anything other than argument being used either for or against it. I am also unaware Darwin was threatened, censored or prosecuted. Perhaps someone else has details. John Hedley Brooke has two good chapters in Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives.

Whether or not abortion is wrong is not a scientific question. Consequently it has no bearing at all on this discussion.

I was also under the impression that stem cell research was allowed by a President who was himself associated with the religious right. However, there are moral questions attached to the matter which are again not scientific but ethical and hence do not impinge on this discussion any more than the rights and wrongs (mostly wrongs) of capital punishment do.

Like Kenny, I am a Christian with a physics major. Science and Christianity have a good deal in common that has made them allies through the centuries. Against, idealists, both insisted on a comprehensible universe and on objective reality. Today the same conflict is fought with post modernist thought that seeks to eradicate the meaning of truth. Both, against luddites, see it as a duty to explore and understand the world around us. Both also have a notion that we can use the world for our benefit but we are also custodians of it. It was the Christian worldview married to Greek/Arab rationality that brought about the rise of modern science uniquely in the Latin West. If there was such a conflict how did this happen in a society so suffused with Christianity? Why didn’t modern science arise after Archimedes or in Alexandria? Why not in India or China? There are many reasons but it is suggested by Benjamin Nelson and others that the Christian worldview was, in the West, a necessary component. For a potted history of science see <a href="http://www.bede.org.uk/sciencehistory.htm" target="_blank">this essay</a>.

So the conflicts that arise are usually between scientists where the church has taken one side or the other. With Galileo they got it wrong. With the argument before the Big Bang was discovered about whether the universe was eternal or had a beginning the church was right. Today’s creationists are a very rare example of where a religious group (not mainstream Christianity) is opposing science per se (although the creationists would disagree).

Hence, usually the conflicts are superficial as they are over matters scientists don’t even agree on. Once the argument is sorted the church falls into line. For some reason it is still beaten around the head for not always being on the correct side while scientists are allowed to make a virtue of changing their minds (although few do, it’s usually a new generation that accepts the new ideas). While Christianity does make some claims of ‘eternal truth’ we can agree that they are not scientifically testable and hence not a matter of conflict (except the beginning of the universe that rolled out Christianity’s way).

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede’s Library – faith and reason</a>

Bede

Hey, Oolon, remember the trouble Andrew got into over this in his debate with Madmax? I was tearing into him too .

Anyway, I define supernatural as that which is not explainable using naturalistic explanations. I've got my hands full with the conflict thing on this thread but maybe another time...

B

ex-preacher

I would love to see you march into the pulpit of any one of the 1,000+ member Southern Baptist churches in this region and announce that creationists are not part of "mainstream Christianity." For that matter, you could also try that in the Methodist church, Lutheran church, Church of Christ, or Christian Church. I'd suggest you be prepared to make a quick get-away.

Calling creationism a "very rare example" of religion opposing science is somewhat akin to asking Mrs. Lincoln: "Other than that, how was the play?"

<strong> Are you serious? Please count me as one who does not agree with this statement. The Bible makes a large number of statements that are testable scientifically, as well as other statements which can be critically assessed by history, archaeology and logic. Most do not "roll out Christianity's way."

To ask whether science and Christianity are compatible is like asking whether husbands and wives are compatible (to use your analogy). The only honest answer: Some is, some ain't. It all depends on the particular variant of one's Christianity. Like the most hide-bound fundamentalist, you seem to think that your version is the True Christianity. In fact, however, there are thousands of variants of Christianity. While yours accomodates science, many are quite incompatible with science.

I know a man who is the dean of education in a 4,000+ student Christian university. He stated that in places where the science and the Bible are in conflict, one has no choice but to conclude that science is in error. You probably wouldn't consider him a part of "mainstream Christianity." But that's okay, because he wouldn't consider you a Christian at all.

Bede

So modern American right wing fundementalism is in conflict with science. I can believe that but they are certainly not mainstream Christianity as you would realise if you are one of the few Americans with passports and travel a bit. I doubt they are even mainstream Christianity in the US where Catholics and mainline Protestant churches surely out number them by some margin (anyone got figures?). I think you mistake being loud with being mainstream.

Finally, this has nothing to do with any of my historical and general points although I expect in the time honoured fashion around here they will be ignored while you all rant about your local fundies.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Daggah

That's a very poor definition. Under this definition, gravity (before Newton) is "supernatural."

ex-preacher

Good Lord, you're arrogant. Yes, I have a passport and have traveled a bit - in fact I hold dual citizenship in the US and Brazil. I have also traveled to what you might consider the real world - Great Britain.

Please define "mainstream Christianity."

<strong> Surely you are not this ignorant about Christianity in the US. Let me put it this way for you: the Southern Baptist churches in the US have about 3 times as many people in church each week as you have in all churches in merry old England.

Here's another statistic for you. About 45% of all Americans believe in a literal divine creation as per Genesis. About 38% believe in "theistic evolution." The few remaining ones accept reality.

<strong> Could you try to answer just one of the questions in my earlier post? Or do you prefer to rant?

Vorkosigan

So modern American right wing fundementalism is in conflict with science. I can believe that but they are certainly not mainstream Christianity as you would realise if you are one of the few Americans with passports and travel a bit. I doubt they are even mainstream Christianity in the US where Catholics and mainline Protestant churches surely out number them by some margin (anyone got figures?). I think you mistake being loud with being mainstream.

Bede, you are correct for Europe and America, but in the Third World, Christianity is resolutely authoritarian, Creationist and magical.

Michael

Vorkosigan

It was the Christian worldview married to Greek/Arab rationality that brought about the rise of modern science uniquely in the Latin West. If there was such a conflict how did this happen in a society so suffused with Christianity? Why didn’t modern science arise after Archimedes or in Alexandria? Why not in India or China? There are many reasons but it is suggested by Benjamin Nelson and others that the Christian worldview was, in the West, a necessary component

We've been over this. Christian worldview is illusory, incoherent, contradictory and worthless as a guide to reality. It had little or nothing to do with the rise of science (Christian contributions lay in other areas). Greek/Arab rationality was the basis for the rise of science, coupled with many historical accidents. If Christianity is so important, why was science not discovered in Orthodox Christendom? In Central Asian Christendom? I realize a lot of academics out there are struggling to invent a streamlined picture of the nonsense that is Christ-inanity so that they can make some kind of case for Christian thinking to have influenced science, but that is not the case. Time for me to write a book, I can see.

Michael

Bede

Michael, I can truly say this is one of the most exciting ideas I've ever read on these boards. Please do. I shall reserve the review slot in ISIS .

Yours

Bede

[http://www.bede.org.uk]Bede's Library - faith and reason[/url]